SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, Dausa V. CIT, Alwar

ITA 144/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 14423114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAN SINGH MEENA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, PROP. M/S. ANURADHA ENTERPRISES, RAM GARH ROAD, MAHUWA (DAUSA). CUKE VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A- @ PAN/GIR NO.: AGHPG 9369 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI MAN SINGH MEENA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/07/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/08/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATING FROM TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT, ALWAR DATED 10.12.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE IT ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAIS ED ARE AS UNDER :- (1) THE LD. CIT, ALWAR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACT OF THE CASE IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT WHIC H IS BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS THEREFOR E, THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) (2) THE LD. CIT, ALWAR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CT OF THE CASE IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY WRONGLY AND INCORRECTLY HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECTED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASS ED ON DATED 31.12.2012 WAS WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES. SUCH FINDING AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, BOTH ARE CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD. HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.12.2014 KIN DLY BE QUASHED. (3) THE LD. CIT, ALWAR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CT OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE VARIOUS FACTS, SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVI DENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AS ALSO BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO ISSU ES UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER KINDLY BE QUASHED. (4) THE LD. CIT, ALWAR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE IN SETTING-ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2012 WITH REFERENCE TO ALL THE FOLLOWING ISSUES :- (I) REGARDING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OF RS. 4,18,644/- T O M/S. PIPES CENTRE, MADURAI. (II) REGARDING THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCK. (III) REGARDING ADVANCE OF RS. 2,50,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI J AGDISH MEENA. (IV) REGARDING BANK CHARGES OF RS. 8,363.50. MERELY ON SUSPICION, SURMISE & CONJUNCTURES AND IN WRONGLY ALLEGING LACK OF PROPER ENQUIRY AND NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A PRETENCE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER THEREF ORE LACKS VALID JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE IMPU GNED ORDER KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMMISSION AGENT AND WHOLESALE GENERAL MERCHANT OF GRAINS. ALL THE GROUN DS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE 3 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) REVOLVING AROUND SECTION 263 ORDER PASSED FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11 BY LD. CIT, ALWAR. IN THIS CASE THE AO SCRUTINIZED THE CASE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT WHICH WAS COMPLETED ON 31.12.2012. THE LD. CIT O BSERVED THAT ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN ON 14.10.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 87,28,100/-. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPL ETED ON 31.12.2012 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 87,61,650/- BY DCIT CIRCLE, BHA RATPUR. THE LD. CIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06.02.2014 TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT AT PAGES 1, 2 & 3 , FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 25.02.2014. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY DATED 04.03.2014 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT AT PAGES 4,5,6,7 & 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPL Y, THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 4,18,644/- TO M/S. RAJESH PIPE CENTRE, MADURAI. ON PERUSAL OF THE CON FIRMATION FILED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE A BOVE CONCERN WAS DEALING IN MS, GI AND PVC PIPES ONLY AND THE AO HAD ALLOWED THI S COMMISSION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE GENUINENESS OF NATURE OF EXPENSES, WHE THER THE ABOVE CONCERN RENDERED ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID DU RING THE YEAR. THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY EV IDENCE ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN BUSINESS OF TRADE/COMMISSION OF FOOD GRAINS ETC., WHEREAS 4 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) AS PER COPY OF CONFIRMATION, M/S. RAJESH PIPE CENTR E DEALS IN SALE OF MS, GI AND PVC PIPES ONLY. THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE LD. A/ R IS ON DIFFERENT LETTER HEAD AND UNDER DIFFERENT SIGNATURE. THE NON-ENQUIRY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. 2.1. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS IN RESPECT TO THE OPEN ING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, IT IS NO TICED BY THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PURCHASE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,09,376.7 7 ONLY FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2010 WITHOUT WEIGHT. THE TOTAL PURCHASE (IN WEIGHT) HAD BEEN SHOWN AT 2,61,038.72 QUINTALS, BUT AFTER TOTALING IT IS FOUND AT 2,85,679.89 QUINTALS. THUS WEIGHT-WISE PURCHASE HAS BEEN SHOWN LESS BY 24,637 .14 QUINTALS. SIMILARLY, THE TOTAL SALES (IN WEIGHT) HAD BEEN SHOW N AT 2,80,607.98 QUINTALS BUT AFTER TOTALING MONTH-WISE, IT WAS FOUND AT 2,80,759 Q UINTALS. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT THAT AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE F OR THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2010 AND MARCH, 2010 IT COMES TO RS. 1521.04 PER QU INTAL. IF THE SAME WEIGHT IS ADDED TO TOTAL PURCHASE WEIGHT THEN THE TOTAL PURCHA SES WILL COME TO 2,86,010.69 QUINTALS. ACCORDINGLY THE CLOSING STOC K WILL BE 5251.14 QUINTALS INSTEAD OF 4916.34 QUINTALS. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORTAGE OF CLOSING STOCK BY 334.80 QUINTALS WHICH WERE SOLD BY THE ASSE SSEE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IF THE RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLOSING STO CK IS TAKEN BY PURCHASE PRICE OF MARCH, 2010, THAT THE SAME IS 1185.63 QUINTALS. ACC ORDINGLY THE TOTAL DIFFERENCE 5 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) COMES TO RS. 3,96,948/-. SIMILARLY AS REGARDS SALE S IN WEIGHT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE TOTAL SALES AT 2,80,607.98 QUINTALS WHEREAS THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE AT 2,80,759 QUINTALS AFTER MONTH-WISE TOTALING. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS WAS THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF WE IGHT OF THE GUNNY BAGS AND DEBIT NOTES RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2010 . THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD BY HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS PASSED WITHOUT ENQUIRY A ND APPLICATION OF MIND. 2.2. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESS EE HAD GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS. 2,50,000/- TO SHRI JAGDISH MEENA S/O SHRI RAM C HAND MEENA, RESIDENT OF DEVLI, DISTRICT BHARATPUR WHICH WAS REMAINED UNPAID T ILL DATE OF ASSESSMENT. ON VERIFICATION OF CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE LD. A/R, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED FROM HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BORROWED MONEY FROM MARKET AS WELL AS FROM RELATIVES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND PAI D INTEREST ON IT. THE AO HAD NOT VERIFIED THE PURPOSE/BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IN ADV ANCING INTEREST FREE LOANS. THUS THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY ON THIS ISSUE. 2.3. THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST CHARGES TOTALING TO RS. 8363.50 ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH ARE PENAL IN NATURE. THE AO HAS NOT EXAMI NED THIS ISSUE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. CIT RELIED ON T HE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (1) M/S. GEE VEE ENTERPRISES, 99 ITR 375 (DELHI HIGH COURT)(1995) ON AO IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN IN VESTIGATOR. 6 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) (2) JAGDISH KUMAR GULATI VS. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (ALLAHA BAD) (3) DUGGAL & CO., 220 ITR 456 (DELHI) (4) K.A. RAMA SWAMI CHETTIAR VS. CIT, 220 ITR 657 (M AD.) ON IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY THE AO, THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER WOULD BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. (5) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) ON AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT AP PLYING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR WITHOUT APPLICAT ION OF MIND. (6) CIT VS. JAWAHR BHATTACHARJEE 342 ITR 74 (GAUHATI HIGH COURT) ON NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. 2.4. THE LD. CIT HELD THAT AOS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 31.12.2012 NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION THAT AO SHOULD PROPERLY EXAMINE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT ALWAR, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AOS ORDER CAN BE REVISED BY THE LD. CIT WHEN IT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE TWIN CONDITIONS HAS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE LD. CIT IN PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT FOR WHICH HE RELIED UPON THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 7 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) 143(3) AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ENQUIRIES AND DUE INVES TIGATION. THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS FILED BY THE LD. A/R BEFORE THE AO D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH HE DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION ON PAGES 1 TO 3 I.E. QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK IN QUANTITY IN ITEM NO 15, DALALI EXPENSES IN ITEM NO. 17, COMM ISSION EXPENSES IN ITEM NO.18 AND PURCHASES/SALES IN ITEM NO. 7, INTEREST P AYMENT AND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IN ITEM NO. 12 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTERS DATED 29.11.2012, 13.12.2 012, 21.12.2012. IT IS PROVED THAT THE LD. AO MADE ENQUIRY DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD PR ODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, STOCK REGISTER, PURCHASE AND SALE EXPENSE S VOUCHERS AND VARIOUS OTHER DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO WHICH WERE DULY EXAMINE D BY HIM. THE LD. AO AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAD MADE NO ADVERSE REMARKS ON THE TRUTHFULNESS AND FAIRNESS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AO V IDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 21.12.2012 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION FOR COMMISSION PAID WITH COMPLETE ADDRESS WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ON 28.12.2012, WHICH CONTAINED COMPLETE NAME, ADDRESS, MOBILE NO., TELEP HONE NO., GST/CST NO. ALONG WITH BROKERAGE BILL DATED 25.02.2010. THEREFOR E, THE AO HAD DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND APPLIED HIS 8 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) MIND. THE AO HAD FORMED THE OPINION AND EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND REASONABLE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD . CIT HAS FORMED ANOTHER OPINION ON SAME SET OF EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION. SIMILARLY, THE DIFFERENCE IN QU ANTITY IN STOCK STATEMENT HAS ALSO BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO BY RAISING QUERY AND C ONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY. THE DIFFERENCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DEBIT/CREDIT NOTES RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CUSTOMERS DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS GENERALLY ISSUED AT THE END OF THE YEAR BY THE TRADERS. THE AO HAD CONSIDERED THE GP AND NP RAT ES AFTER VERIFYING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE APPLIED HIS MIND. SIMILARLY THE LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI JAGDISH MEENA HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS PER QUERY LETTER DATED 09.10.2012 UNDER THE HEAD INTERE ST PAYMENT AND RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS REPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.11.2012. THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD. AO PASS ED A SHORT/CRYPTIC ORDER, WHICH DOES NOT BY ITSELF PROVIDE A VALID GROUND TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT. EVEN IN CASE OF INADEQUACY OF ENQUIRY AN D NO ENQUIRY MADE ALTOGETHER ARE DIFFERENT. THE LD. CIT CANNOT INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 IN CASE OF INADEQUACY OF ENQUIRY FOR WHICH HE RELIED UP ON NUMBER OF CASES. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE IT ACT. 9 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. CIT DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT, ALWAR AND ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD MADE A VERY SHORT AND CRYPTI C ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT ONLY HE HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND BUT NO ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE ALLOWING THE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, ORDER OF LD. CIT MAY PLEAS E BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT CONSIDERED FIVE ISSUES UNDER SECTION 263 I.E . COMMISSION PAYMENT, QUANTITY OF STOCKS, LOAN TO SHRI JAGDISH MEENA, FRE IGHT PAYMENT WITHOUT TDS AND BANK CHARGES. HE HIMSELF HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FR EIGHT CHARGES ADVERSELY FOR TREATING THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE ISSUE NO. 5 IS BANK CHARGES PAID OF RS. 8363/-. THE AMOUNT IS NOMINAL AND LD.AO HAS EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF BANK RECONCILIATION WITH BANK CHARGES. THEREFORE, ON THIS POINT, WE DO NOT FIND THE ORDER OF AO ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. BUT COMMISSION PAYMENT, Q UANTITATIVE DETAILS AND INTEREST ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO AFTE R CALLING THE PARTIAL DETAILS AND THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE ALLOWING THE SAME. IT IS FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS A COMMISSION AGENT AND WHOLESALE GENERAL MERCHANT OF GRAINS. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO M/S. R AJESH PIPE CENTRE, MADURAI WHO IS DEALING IN MS, GI AND PVC PIPES. FURTHER, IN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN ASSESSMENT RECORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS ALSO LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND. 10 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) SIMILARLY, NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON LOANS GIVEN TO SHRI JAGDISH MEENA BUT THE AO HAS COLLECTED THE INFORMAT ION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND SIMPLY PUT ON RECORD WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT AO HAD NO T APPLIED HIS MIND ON IT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF MALABA R INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLIES WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS TO LEVY AND COLLECT TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THIS TASK IS ENTR USTED TO THE REVENUE. IF DUE TO AN ERRONEOUS ORDER OF THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER, THE REVENUE IS LOSING TAX LAWFULLY PAYABLE BY A PER SON, IT WILL CERTAINLY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE. THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COU5RSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULT ED IN LOSS OF REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOM E-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONE R DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY TH E INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 11 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA) THE LD. CIT HAD SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO ON CER TAIN ISSUES FOR MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY AND ALLOW THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE ON ISSUES SET RIGHT IN THE ORDER ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEES APPEAL PARTLY AS DISCUSSED IN THE PARAS ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED P ARTLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/8/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 11 AUGUST, 2015 *DAS VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE CIT, ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA 144/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR 12 ITA NO. 144/JP/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. ANURADHA GUPTA, MAHUWA (DAUSA)